On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 03:29:27PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> Admittedly I've not dug down that deeply, but looking at it my guess
> is that it has something to do with the fact that NewVolMarkAsAncient
> calls VolMarkAsAncient using the parent id of the backup volume you
> pass to it, while VolMarkAsAncient when called from the client, simply
> passes the volume id of the volume that you just backed up (not the
> backup volume id).

Right, but those two volumes will be the same because the backup
volume's parent-id is set to the value of the volume that it was cloned
from (i.e. the backed up volume). Which is why it seems like something
else must have been wrong when the mark-as-ancient was failing and the
patch only seemed to have fixed it.

The backup program is as far as I know quite strict about not marking a
backup unless everything actually completed successfully. So even when
we did get a complete and consistent dump, but the rpc reply times out
it will not mark this as a successful backup. I think there were quite
extensive logs written in /vice/backup or someplace similar, but I
haven't looked at this for at least 8 years now.

Jan